scholarly journals How to Protect the Credibility of Articles Published in Predatory Journals

Publications ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 4
Author(s):  
Yuki Yamada
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Predatory Journal

Predatory journals often prey on innocent researchers who are unaware of the threat they pose. This paper discusses what researchers can do if they unintentionally publish a paper in a predatory journal, including measures to take before submission, during peer review, and after the journal has accepted a manuscript. The specific recommendations discussed are pre-registration, pre-submission peer-review, open peer-review, topping up reviewers, post-publication peer review, open recommendation, and treatment as unrefereed. These measures may help to ensure the credibility of the article, even if it is published in a predatory journal. The present article suggests that an open and multi-layered assessment of research content enhances the credibility of all research articles, even those published in non-predatory journals. If applied consistently by researchers in various fields, the suggested measures may enhance reproducibility and promote the advancement of science.

scholarly journals How to protect the credibility of articles published in predatory journals

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuki Yamada
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Predatory Journal

Predatory journals often prey on innocent researchers who are unaware of the threat they pose. This paper discusses what researchers can do if they unintentionally publish a paper in a predatory journal, including measures to take before submission, during peer review, and after the journal has accepted a manuscript. The specific recommendations discussed are pre-registration, pre-submission peer-review, open peer-review, topping up reviewers, post-publication peer review, open recommendation, and treatment as unrefereed. These measures may help to ensure the credibility of the article, even if it is published in a predatory journal. The present article suggests that an open and multi-layered assessment of research content enhances the credibility of all research articles, even those published in non-predatory journals. If applied consistently by researchers in various fields, the suggested measures may enhance reproducibility and promote the advancement of science.

scholarly journals Revistas depredadoras: una amenaza a la integridad y calidad científica

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 181-183
Author(s):  
Edwin Gustavo Estrada Araoz ◽  
◽  
Néstor Antonio Gallegos Ramos ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Production ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Impact Indicators

During the last few years, scientific production through research articles has increased, however, it is necessary to be certain that thescientific journals where they are published meet quality and impact indicators, are indexed in important databases (Scopus, Web ofScience, Medline, Scielo, Redalyc, Dialnet, etc.) and that they are not predatory journals. These types of journals publish articles in a fewdays, do not perform peer review, charge processing fees and send e-mails offering their services. In short, they are a threat to scientificintegrity and quality because they publish articles of very low or zero rigor and contribution to science, so researchers should detect themand avoid publishing in them

scholarly journals Knowledge and motivations of researchers publishing in presumed predatory journals: a survey

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. e026516 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly D Cobey ◽  
Agnes Grudniewicz ◽  
Manoj M Lalu ◽  
Danielle B Rice ◽  
Hana Raffoul ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Grey Zone ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Effective Interventions ◽  
Biomedical Journals ◽  
Predatory Journal ◽  
Email Invitation

ObjectivesTo develop effective interventions to prevent publishing in presumed predatory journals (ie, journals that display deceptive characteristics, markers or data that cannot be verified), it is helpful to understand the motivations and experiences of those who have published in these journals.DesignAn online survey delivered to two sets of corresponding authors containing demographic information, and questions about researchers' perceptions of publishing in the presumed predatory journal, type of article processing fees paid and the quality of peer review received. The survey also asked six open-ended items about researchers' motivations and experiences.ParticipantsUsing Beall’s lists, we identified two groups of individuals who had published empirical articles in biomedical journals that were presumed to be predatory.ResultsEighty-two authors partially responded (~14% response rate (11.4%[44/386] from the initial sample, 19.3%[38/197] from second sample) to our survey. The top three countries represented were India (n=21, 25.9%), USA (n=17, 21.0%) and Ethiopia (n=5, 6.2%). Three participants (3.9%) thought the journal they published in was predatory at the time of article submission. The majority of participants first encountered the journal via an email invitation to submit an article (n=32, 41.0%), or through an online search to find a journal with relevant scope (n=22, 28.2%). Most participants indicated their study received peer review (n=65, 83.3%) and that this was helpful and substantive (n=51, 79.7%). More than a third (n=32, 45.1%) indicated they did not pay fees to publish.ConclusionsThis work provides some evidence to inform policy to prevent future research from being published in predatory journals. Our research suggests that common views about predatory journals (eg, no peer review) may not always be true, and that a grey zone between legitimate and presumed predatory journals exists. These results are based on self-reports and may be biased thus limiting their interpretation.

scholarly journals Peer review under the ethical lens: possible questions

Bosniaca ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (25) ◽  
pp. 183
Author(s):  
Alexandru-Ionuţ Petrişor
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
University Ranking ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Citation Metrics

The pressure to publish and get cited along with the extensive use of citation metrics in individual career promotion, research funding and university ranking have radically changed the research ecosystem during the last few decades, favoring the rise of predatory journals. This phenomenon has shaken the very backbone of the system, represented by the peer review process. The present article builds up upon the recommendation for reviewers, including the ethical ones, and articles expressing some concerns related to the peer review in order not to answer, but merely ask several questions that could serve as the start point for a reform of the system. Overall, the role of peer review is not at stakes, but its intricate mechanisms need to adapt to the challenges of the new environment.-------------------------------------------------Stručna recenzija pod etičkim povećalom: moguća pitanjaPritisak da se rad objavi i citira zajedno s velikom upotrebom citatskih metrika u individualnoj promociji karijere, financiranju istraživanja i rangiranju univerziteta radikalno su promijenili istraživački ekosistem tijekom posljednjih nekoliko desetljeća, pogodujući porastu grabežljivih časopisa. Ovaj fenomen je uzdrmao samu okosnicu sistema, predstavljenog postupkom stručne recenzije. Ovaj se članak temelji na preporuci za recenzente, uključujući etiku, te članci izražavaju zabrinutost koja se odnosi na recenziju, ne kako bi dali odgovor, već postavljajući samo nekoliko pitanja koja bi mogla poslužiti kao polazište za reformu sistema. Sveukupno, uloga stručne provjere nije na kocki, ali njeni zamršeni mehanizmi moraju se prilagoditi izazovima novog okruženja.

scholarly journals Perspectives From Authors and Editors in the Biomedical Disciplines on Predatory Journals: Survey Study

10.2196/13769 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (8) ◽  
pp. e13769 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew J Cohen ◽  
German Patino ◽  
Puneet Kamal ◽  
Medina Ndoye ◽  
Anas Tresh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Survey Study ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Total Potential ◽  
Biomedical Publication ◽  
Predatory Publishing ◽  
Predatory Journal ◽  
Survey Responses ◽  
Research Incentives ◽  
The Impact

Background Predatory journals fail to fulfill the tenets of biomedical publication: peer review, circulation, and access in perpetuity. Despite increasing attention in the lay and scientific press, no studies have directly assessed the perceptions of the authors or editors involved. Objective Our objective was to understand the motivation of authors in sending their work to potentially predatory journals. Moreover, we aimed to understand the perspective of journal editors at journals cited as potentially predatory. Methods Potential online predatory journals were randomly selected among 350 publishers and their 2204 biomedical journals. Author and editor email information was valid for 2227 total potential participants. A survey for authors and editors was created in an iterative fashion and distributed. Surveys assessed attitudes and knowledge about predatory publishing. Narrative comments were invited. Results A total of 249 complete survey responses were analyzed. A total of 40% of editors (17/43) surveyed were not aware that they were listed as an editor for the particular journal in question. A total of 21.8% of authors (45/206) confirmed a lack of peer review. Whereas 77% (33/43) of all surveyed editors were at least somewhat familiar with predatory journals, only 33.0% of authors (68/206) were somewhat familiar with them (P<.001). Only 26.2% of authors (54/206) were aware of Beall’s list of predatory journals versus 49% (21/43) of editors (P<.001). A total of 30.1% of authors (62/206) believed their publication was published in a predatory journal. After defining predatory publishing, 87.9% of authors (181/206) surveyed would not publish in the same journal in the future. Conclusions Authors publishing in suspected predatory journals are alarmingly uninformed in terms of predatory journal quality and practices. Editors’ increased familiarity with predatory publishing did little to prevent their unwitting listing as editors. Some suspected predatory journals did provide services akin to open access publication. Education, research mentorship, and a realignment of research incentives may decrease the impact of predatory publishing.

scholarly journals The Quality of Statistical Reporting and Data Presentation in Predatory Dental Journals Was Lower Than in Non-Predatory Journals

Entropy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 468
Author(s):  
Pentti Nieminen ◽  
Sergio E. Uribe
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Mean Values ◽  
Data Presentation ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Study Results ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Highly Cited

Proper peer review and quality of published articles are often regarded as signs of reliable scientific journals. The aim of this study was to compare whether the quality of statistical reporting and data presentation differs among articles published in ‘predatory dental journals’ and in other dental journals. We evaluated 50 articles published in ‘predatory open access (OA) journals’ and 100 clinical trials published in legitimate dental journals between 2019 and 2020. The quality of statistical reporting and data presentation of each paper was assessed on a scale from 0 (poor) to 10 (high). The mean (SD) quality score of the statistical reporting and data presentation was 2.5 (1.4) for the predatory OA journals, 4.8 (1.8) for the legitimate OA journals, and 5.6 (1.8) for the more visible dental journals. The mean values differed significantly (p < 0.001). The quality of statistical reporting of clinical studies published in predatory journals was found to be lower than in open access and highly cited journals. This difference in quality is a wake-up call to consume study results critically. Poor statistical reporting indicates wider general lower quality in publications where the authors and journals are less likely to be critiqued by peer review.

Understanding Quality in Research: Avoiding Predatory Journals

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 661-664 ◽  
Author(s):  
Genae Strong
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Warning Signs ◽  
Control Measures ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Human Lactation ◽  
Predatory Publishing ◽  
Predatory Publishers ◽  
Global Threat ◽  
Publishing Practices

Peer-review publishing has long been the gold standard for disseminating research. The peer-review process holds researchers accountable for their work and conveys confidence that the article is of value to the reader. Predatory journals and publishing pose a global threat to the quality of scientific literature, accuracy of educational resources, and safety of patient care. Predatory publishing uses an exploitative business model, substandard quality control measures, and deceptive publishing practices. Given the proliferation of these journals and the extreme measures utilized to disguise substandard publishing practices, avoiding them can prove difficult. Understanding the nature of predatory publishing and how to recognize the warning signs provide helpful measures to authors, researchers, students, and readers. Additional resources known to help avoid predatory publishers have been discussed in addition to reviewing the Journal of Human Lactation guidelines for publishing.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document